Hermes Silk Scarf

Grahame Case · Post by **Grahame Case** » Sat 16 Feb, 2008 12:26 pm

anyone had any experience framing silk scarves?

how did you do it?

osgood · Post by **osgood** » Sat 16 Feb, 2008 7:59 pm

I framed a silk painting using a static mount on perspex, which worked perfectly. This would only work if you wanted the silk flat and with a mat!

Roboframer · Post by **Roboframer** » Sun 17 Feb, 2008 8:55 pm

Do the edges need to be shown?

If not the Newberry (tight fit) method might be good.

ross · Post by **ross** » Mon 18 Feb, 2008 10:30 am

Hi Grahame

We have framed a few silk scarfs - generally they have been close to a metre square so we have pinned them to a piece of 5mm acid-free fome-cor (using stainless steel pins) and inserted them into a frame unit under glass - using a small spacer

Ross

Grahame Case · Post by **Grahame Case** » Mon 18 Feb, 2008 6:16 pm

this lady doesn't want it pinned, laced or anything that may harm the integrity of the fabric,

it's about 1m square..

got the fine art trade guild duty tech expert looking into it for us,

but we may go with the static mount perspex idea, i think she may want to see the edges too, i can't quite remember, what i do no is we have to order in Jumbo size Museum board to get a board big enough.

kev@frames · Post by **kev@frames** » Mon 18 Feb, 2008 9:01 pm

Roboframer wrote:Do the edges need to be shown?

If not the Newberry (tight fit) method might be good.

whats the newberry method, John?

Mary Case GCF · Post by **Mary Case GCF** » Mon 18 Feb, 2008 9:05 pm

Spoke to Stephen McKee today. He is the FATG duty technical expert. He was talking about the Newbery method. Getting back to me in the morning to explain it. BTW Sharon-lee wasn't even placed in the Picture Business Framing competition. The guitar won it. A travesty I say!

Not your average framer · Mon 18 Feb, 2008 10:24 pm

Grahame Case wrote:what i do no is we have to order in Jumbo size Museum board to get a board big enough.

I get around having to use jumbo mountboard by making a double mount.

I make the bottom mount from strips of mountboard, using the same technique as employed with "Bevel accents" and if possible join the strips at the corners only.

If the mount is too big to get away with this, then I join them in the middle of each strip also and insert a "fill-in" section which joins onto the two strips and presents an angled corner at the join. This means that the join lines are concealed in the normal corner transitions along the bevelled edge.

The top mount again uses a similar approach, but the "fill-in" sections of the top mount have to completely cover the join lines in the bottom mount and join with the long strips in the top mount again at angled corners.

These top mount joins are v-grooved to look like a desgn feature and also the top mount "in-fills" come to a point at an appropiate postion to completely conceal the whole cut line at any join in the bottom mount. It is therefore necessary that these concealment points meet at the joins on the front edge of the cut bevels on the bottom mount.

To do this I use strips of mountboard and designer in-fill sections which are part of the top mount. The in-fill sections in the top mount cover over the joins in the bottom mount.

This of course all sounds very difficult and indeed would be almost impossible to get a perfect result, except for the fact that I build into the design some capacity to cheat a little by joining the "fill in" sections in the top mount to the long strips with an angled cut. This means that the long strips can be moved towards or away from the aperture to get "gap free" v-groove joins and a little surplus is allowed on the width of these top mount long strips which is trimmed of the outside after assembly.

Don't expect this to be quick to do as it is not, (especially getting uniform angled v-groove joins), your mount cutter set-up must be spot-on! Cutting and assembling such a mount can take a really long time, if you want it to be totally perfect. The first time you do one it will drive you nuts, trying to line it all up, but once you've done it once, any future ones are much easier.

osgood · Post by **osgood** » Mon 18 Feb, 2008 10:39 pm

Mary Case GCF wrote: He was talking about the Newbery method.

Grahame,
The Newbery method works well on small items. I'm not sure that it will be a great success with a piece that large especially since it is silk, which is a bit slippery!

It also mean that a considerable amount of the edge of the piece will not be seen. More, probably than would be concealed by using a static mount with a mat to cover the edge.

Framer Dave · Post by **Framer Dave** » Sun 16 Mar, 2008 2:56 am

osgood wrote: Grahame,
The Newbery method works well on small items. I'm not sure that it will be a great success with a piece that large especially since it is silk, which is a bit slippery!

It also mean that a considerable amount of the edge of the piece will not be seen. More, probably than would be concealed by using a static mount with a mat to cover the edge.

The slippy problem can be avoided by covering the falllout, the piece on which the silk will actually lie, with a thin layer of felt or a piece of suede mountboard.